Anything and everything dxo does are nonsensical. I don't care how and what exactly they measure but having used some of the cameras they've tested, I wouldn't believe anything they publish.
If you trust them, Canon 5D Classic is better in low light than some rather modern cameras like Sony A6000, Nikon D500, D7200 and so on.
The fact that DXO doesn't take into account resolution into their scores makes their interpretation of the final image "blurred"......
........however, as for the rest I haven't seen much that hasn't been collaborated elsewhere......
........so nonsensical?
I don't see it that way!
Edit...........apart from their scores of their own nonsensical telephone bolt on thingy!
Actually I don't think it's possible or sensible to tinker around with MP on a given sensor. BC's comment, as far as I understood, was about various MP numbers from Sony cameras and a different number in Nikon which indeed means both sensors are different. The one from Nikon to the point that they have differnet lanes from 64 to 400 ISO and above it's another circuit. Meanwhile I think, Nikon had to find another supplier because Sony is a direct competitor on FF mirrorless.
Now, there was Fukushima influencing a couple of suppliers, the earthquake around the Thailand (?) chip factory of Sony and this sensor is coming from Israel, not exactly the safest region in this world. Somehow that's interesting.
Sony themselves said said they wete not giving their best sensors to competitors leaving Nikon no chance but looking elsewhere.
The problem here (Lebanon) the law forbids importing goods manufactured in Israel, so we might see a ban on Nikon cameras
10-12-2017, 09:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017, 09:13 PM by mike.)
Well, I've worked in Sony fabs, they've made plenty of chips for plenty of people which were not their designs. Some customers actually better utilize the process node than others, including internal customers. It doesn't work quite how your thinking. Technology nodes are built, design rules are given to perspective customers, which includes the people who design the electronics of the chips within Sony.
There's no reason why someone couldn't build a better chip at their fab than they are. I've seen it first hand. Consider as an example, Sony is on a design cycle. It's not good business to supersede themselves before they make any money. On top of that, an external vendor comes in to build a chip and not only is the process more mature and stable, a few new tricks have been incorporated.
On top of all that many of these sensors are stacked chips (check out the A9 video). So Sony may only be making the actual sensor, another fab that specializes in advanced CMOS processes with a more advanced technology, like a TSMC, which allows a lot more on-board processing to be done (think Moore's Law) could be doing all the processing of the data coming from the pixels.
While this may not be the case with this specific chip, this is how it works.
Tony, I wouldn't worry about a Nikon ban. It would only be a piece part in the camera. Intel had fabs in Israel and I doubt Lebanon banned Apple or PCs that has one of these chips in it; or were designed in whole or part there. I'm sure the chips are sent somewhere else to be packaged (usually Korea or the Philippines), then somewhere else for test, then somewhere else to be put on a PCB, the finally somewhere else where it ends up in the final product and says made (or assembled) in China or somewhere else. Otherwise you'd be in deep doo0doo because, even the raw materials come from all over the world.
DXO does not explain anything there. Just blurb.
![[Image: comp2_dr_print.jpg]](https://cdn.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/comp2_dr_print.jpg)
